Thread Subject: Re: one moreitemforconsiderationinself-contained/closed

From: Tom Brett
Date: Wed, May 23 2007 1:57 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

While I tend to agree that the placement of the finger would not be a
national security issue, HSPD 12 implies that the fingerprint reader,
itself, would fall into the national security venue.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:43 PM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] one
moreitemforconsiderationinself-contained/closed

I don't think placement of the finger is a matter of national security so it

could be covered. Not sure where it belongs. We'll hold on to it though
until determined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] one more
itemforconsiderationinself-contained/closed


Unless it specifically address agencies will claim that they do not need to
conform. If you look at HSPD-12 and the requirements that each agency is
required to implement security has become more National Security in nature.




Tom Brett



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:18 PM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] one more item
forconsiderationinself-contained/closed



NO. Not necessarily.





Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303





_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:09 PM
To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] one more item for
considerationinself-contained/closed

Well you could say that but couldn't a government agency claim that
fingerprint readers would fall under the national security exception?



Tom Brett



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] one more item for consideration
inself-contained/closed



This may be for hardware, if so feel free to slap me there.

Biometric input "surfaces" must be tactually discernible, but they are not
controls, so may need to be called out specifically. For example, a
fingerprint reader must at least allow someone who is blind to feel where to
put their finger.



Allen Hoffman
DHS : CRCL & OCIO;
DHS Office On Accessible Systems and Technology
v: 202-447-0303; c: 202-213-1835; tty: 202-401-0725
email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = or = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and
state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and
legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and
delete this message.

Thank you.






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None